New high resolution satellite data has measured increasing nitrogen and sulfur …

Until now, the vast majority of our oil supply has come from easy-to-exploit deposits, although these are being depleted even as our need for oil continues to grow. This growing demand helps keep the price of oil up, which has spurred technology advances that now make possible exploiting oil reserves such as the Canadian oil sands. Extracting useable oil from the mix of sand, clay, water, and bitumen is an energy-intensive process, and many are worried about its environmental impact. A new study from researchers in Canada, the Netherlands, and the US has assessed air quality over the region using satellite remote sensing to give us a better idea of exactly what that impact looks like.

In 2010, we reported on a paper in PNAS that directly contradicted official claims that neither humans nor the environment were at risk from the oil extraction. That study determined levels of pollutants by analyzing snow samples from around 30 sites, finding significant levels of heavy metal contamination. This new study, by contrast, has used satellites to obtain high resolution measures of NO2 and SO2 over North America between 2005-2010.

The data shows an increase in NO2 levels in the air over the Syncrude Canada's Mildred Lake and Suncor Energy's Millenium surface mining operations. The authors state that the output of SO2 over the oil sands appears to be at least as great as any other source in Canada, and comparable to sulfur emissions from a large powerplant (around 100 kt/year) but the data is noisy and not statistically significant. The NO2 emissions from the oil sands are also comparable to those emitted by a large powerplant, but unlike SO2 levels, they're dwarfed by those coming from Edmonton to the south.

Comparing data from 2005-2007 with data from 2008-2010, the authors find NO2 levels increasing at a rate of just over 10 percent a year, roughly in line with the rate of increased oil production from the oil sands (around seven percent annually).

Its Tar Sands. Oil Sands was invented by the industry to sound nicer. But it's Tar.

The latest branding effort is to call it "ethical oil".

It's incredible how easy it is to get people to scream bloody murder that they want an oil pipeline built over a major aquifer, to pump more hydrocarbons, but no one wants to move to a renewable energy, hydrogen, and diesel based energy economy, which could work cleaner and make heavy use of existing infrastructure and automobiles.

One of the major issues people cite with regard to the problem with solar energy is its inconsistent availability, but such problems can be overcome with a simple energy storage scheme utilizing excess energy produced during daytime to produce hydrogen via electrolysis which can then be "burned" during times of low energy production and/or higher utilization to in effect, cleanly store clean power. (as in from wind and solar)

These are solutions that could have already been implemented if the world weren't being run by oil interests.

@johneee: Actually, it's bituminous sands. Both oil and tar sands are misleading terms, but these are the terms most people understand. Furthermore, oil sands seems to have achieve broader use now, so I think it's a valid choice. The article goes on to describe the sands as "the mix of sand, clay, water, and bitumen", thus addressing the potentially misleading nature of the label. I think that's fair, but you don't?

Its Tar Sands. Oil Sands was invented by the industry to sound nicer. But it's Tar.

The latest branding effort is to call it "ethical oil".

It's incredible how easy it is to get people to scream bloody murder that they want an oil pipeline built over a major aquifer, to pump more hydrocarbons, but no one wants to move to a renewable energy, hydrogen, and diesel based energy economy, which could work cleaner and make heavy use of existing infrastructure and automobiles.

One of the major issues people cite with regard to the problem with solar energy is its inconsistent availability, but such problems can be overcome with a simple energy storage scheme utilizing excess energy produced during daytime to produce hydrogen via electrolysis which can then be "burned" during times of low energy production and/or higher utilization to in effect, cleanly store clean power. (as in from wind and solar)

These are solutions that could have already been implemented if the world weren't being run by oil interests.

If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Oil is still cheap and has a major distribution system that works great, which is why it is used. You can disagree all you want with that, but it doesn't matter much and we know from history that people will sit and stare an issue in the face until well after it burns them.

As for oil, the environmental effects are not something the majority of people feel, so they don't care.

The best thing to lower oil usage is price. Price going up is making people think about their energy use and that will have a bigger effect than any other thing we do.

Its Tar Sands. Oil Sands was invented by the industry to sound nicer. But it's Tar.

The latest branding effort is to call it "ethical oil".

It's incredible how easy it is to get people to scream bloody murder that they want an oil pipeline built over a major aquifer, to pump more hydrocarbons, but no one wants to move to a renewable energy, hydrogen, and diesel based energy economy, which could work cleaner and make heavy use of existing infrastructure and automobiles.

One of the major issues people cite with regard to the problem with solar energy is its inconsistent availability, but such problems can be overcome with a simple energy storage scheme utilizing excess energy produced during daytime to produce hydrogen via electrolysis which can then be "burned" during times of low energy production and/or higher utilization to in effect, cleanly store clean power. (as in from wind and solar)

These are solutions that could have already been implemented if the world weren't being run by oil interests.

Years ago in New Zealand there were two options that were subsidised, LPG (liquid Petroleum Gas) and CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) - maybe that is one option that needs to be looked at given that there are many places in the US and in friendly countries which would mean a move from petrol over to natural gas at least in the short term. Long term what is really needed is a super battery, cheap and power a car for up to 500km - if you developed that then 1/2 of the problem would be solved already.

If it was that simple, it would have been done already. Oil is still cheap and has a major distribution system that works great, which is why it is used. You can disagree all you want with that, but it doesn't matter much and we know from history that people will sit and stare an issue in the face until well after it burns them.

As for oil, the environmental effects are not something the majority of people feel, so they don't care.

The best thing to lower oil usage is price. Price going up is making people think about their energy use and that will have a bigger effect than any other thing we do.

Firstly, it's not about simple, it's about money and control.

Secondly, people do feel the environmental effects of petroleum use, the problem is most people are too ignorant to understand that the warmer winters and stronger storms, as well as increased respiratory problems in modern society are linked to burning hydrocarbons.

Thirdly, I totally agree that the most noticeable thing to most people is the sticker price for gasoline. I can only hope that people will see the proper exit route of paradigm change instead of doing something ridiculous like electing a president on his assertion he can bring back the dessert cart of $2.00/gallon gas.

Years ago in New Zealand there were two options that were subsidised, LPG (liquid Petroleum Gas) and CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) - maybe that is one option that needs to be looked at given that there are many places in the US and in friendly countries which would mean a move from petrol over to natural gas at least in the short term. Long term what is really needed is a super battery, cheap and power a car for up to 500km - if you developed that then 1/2 of the problem would be solved already.

Batteries aren't a good solution. Change to direct hydrogen power is the most elegant solution. It has excellent energy density, it can utilize already existing infrastructure for transit, and it burns into water.

On a "Wells to Wheels" basis, oil sands derived fuels are no worse than most other sources. In fact they are slightly better than a lot of California produced oil. But the sub-surface injection of 7 barrels of water to produce 1 barrel of oil from a lot of the California reservoirs doesn't make for the same great photo opportunities as an oil sands plant.

It is something like 70+% of the CO2 emissions (as an example) from a given barrel of oil that is generated by combusting fuel for motor transportation. The energy and emissions from extraction, refining, and transportation of that fuel are not the biggest piece of the problem. But they are an easy target, cars vote and oil sands plants don't. Politicians and NGOs are smart enough not to mess with people's cars, which most see as a human right.

Are the oil sands squeeky clean? Nope. But after 15 years of working in them, I assauge my conscience with the recognition that I am just giving you all what you want - cheap fuel. And then I hop on my bike and ride home from work.

And please, no pedantry about how this is tech. One of my companies buys and sells heavy equipment, I've been to Mildred Lake, believe me, I know all about the subject.

I've been writing science content for Ars Technica since 2004 - that's three years before you registered. That means that in the five years you've been registered, there's always been daily science content on the site.

I'm actually truly very curious what your problem with this post is; can you pinpoint it please? It does nothing but report in brief the findings from the paper.

There are other, in-situ methods of bitumen extraction that are much lower impact than the surface mining operations of Suncor and Syncrude. A couple of examples are the SAGD operations of Cenovus at Christina Lake and Foster Creek and CSS extraction by CNRL at Primrose.

Also an important distinction to make is the difference in impact between extraction and upgrading -- the oil sands are a huge operation with many players; it may be impossible not to paint the entire industry with a broad brush in only one small paper.

I don't think that either the industry or the scientific analysis is mature enough at this point for a comprehensive analysis -- which means, I guess, that the media will end up being the one to educate the masses.

Having worked indirectly for folks like Suncor, I can honestly say that they are moving towards pulling oil from the ground as cleanly as possible. The scope and regularity of their upgrades across their sites in Western Canada is pretty astounding. They're not perfect, of course, but they do a hell of a job.

I am not an apologist, but a realist. We all understand that the emissions and pollutants from the site are hazardous, nobody moreso than Suncor - In fact, they have numerous warning systems onsite (Including a REALLY loud klaxon that blares if various toxic pollutants reach over certain levels for an hour) - But it is a necessary price for buying oil. I acknowledge that they've done unethical things, and like every company they should be held accountable. By the same token, they would not be in the oil sands if there was not a market for the oil that they produce - By volume, the largest provider of crude oil to the United States is Canada. The study makes some very intelligent points: Toxins are rising, and because of the nature of the extraction process, there is very little we can do to prevent it, so if anything, these results should push both consumers and Suncor harder towards looking for alternative fuel sources.

If you want change, start writing to folks at Suncor. A quick Google for the e-mail of Suncor's various VPs and other positions of power would certainly give us all a lot of ammunition. E-mail in and tell them that you demand more money invested in alternative fuel sources. If enough of us take action, we can make the change.

I live in Canada and have family members that work in the oil sands industry so full disclosure there. On the other hand I am an avid technologist and am aware of the science of global warming and the dangers it presents.

The problem with most people against the Canadian Oil sands industry is ... they still want to drive their big cars, heat their houses, not support totalitarian Arab regimes AND they do not want to pay the extra coin to develop and consume energy from renewable energy sources.

Anybody see the disconnect here?

Honestly, a switch away from reliance on oil to renewable energy sources is going to take a while. I would like to see an increased investment in finding more energy efficient and cleaner ways to extract the oil from the sands. There has even been talk of building a nuclear reactor for that purpose, but we all know how that goes.

Hydrogen has some significant drawbacks as a fuel source. Currently, hydrogen has to be pressurized at 5000 psi in your vehicle to get any kind of acceptable range. Furthermore, to get to 250 - 300 miles per tank you would need to pressurize it to 10k - 15k psi. That's a rolling bomb. I agree that hydrogen may be the "elegant" solution but it is far from practical and for more reasons than lack of fueling infrastructure.

Also, why didn't they just place some air monitoring equipment near the site? That would have worked quite well without the expensive satellite monitoring. Or am I missing something?

Also, why didn't they just place some air monitoring equipment near the site? That would have worked quite well without the expensive satellite monitoring. Or am I missing something?

They do ground-level monitoring, and the paper compares their satellite data with the ground data. The satellite data also cover a much larger area, and throughout the atmosphere (vertical column density).

As far as the satellite data being expensive, it's being collected anyway and it's open data, so it's not like they specifically launched satellites just to measure this.

Hydrogen has some significant drawbacks as a fuel source. Currently, hydrogen has to be pressurized at 5000 psi in your vehicle to get any kind of acceptable range. Furthermore, to get to 250 - 300 miles per tank you would need to pressurize it to 10k - 15k psi. That's a rolling bomb. I agree that hydrogen may be the "elegant" solution but it is far from practical and for more reasons than lack of fueling infrastructure.

Hydrogen may not be the solution for providing power on the individual level (i.e., fueling up your car with hydrogen), but as jackstrop suggested, excess generation capacity from renewable sources could be stored by producing hydrogen using that excess generation capacity. The safety issues associated with managing large quantities of hydrogen would be borne by the generating facility. During non-producing periods at renewable energy power plants, the hydrogen produced from excess generation could be burned so that the continuity in power supplied by renewable energy plants is at parity with the fossil fuel generators (read: a truly viable replacement).

Instead of driving a hydrogen-powered car, you'd drive an electric car. However, that still leaves an infrastructure problem because then you need charging stations every 50 miles and the national power grid will need some serious rehabilitation (which it needs regardless).

“...official claims that neither humans nor the environment were at risk from the oil extraction”

Maybe the 'officials' should have to live there for 5 years as proof of this non-risk. Most people only have to look at the sludge to know it's not healthy; which doesn't say a lot about the officials.

Oil companies get to sell and export the oil and leave the pollution and waste. Maybe for every oil pipeline, there should be a second pipeline; you want the oil? you get to take the waste too.

At a time where gas will nearly hit $6 a gallon, do we really need leftists complaining about the environmental "damage" that occurs when you extract oil from the ground? Or is it because they drive priuses and drink lattes that their shit smells better than mine?

At a time where gas will nearly hit $6 a gallon, do we really need leftists complaining about the environmental "damage" that occurs when you extract oil from the ground?

Something tells me you wouldn't find any gas price convenient for such a discussion. But if you don't think the rising cost of fossil fuels is relevant to the discussion of moving away from them, then you're not even thinking about the problem economically let alone environmentally.

At a time where gas will nearly hit $6 a gallon, do we really need leftists complaining about the environmental "damage" that occurs when you extract oil from the ground?

Something tells me you wouldn't find any gas price convenient for such a discussion. But if you don't think the rising cost of fossil fuels is relevant to the discussion of moving away from them, then you're not even thinking about the problem economically let alone environmentally.

We have enough oil, coal, and natural gas to last for at least another 100 years. If only the government would stop interfering with our energy security, we could exploit our own natural resources. Additionally, I have reason to believe that more exploration here would be better for the environment because we are used to a cleaner air, and therefore any company wishing to extract resources here would need to improve there processes dramatically.

We have enough oil, coal, and natural gas to last for at least another 100 years.

Let's say you're right, and we have enough coal, oil, and natural gas for another century. In fact, make it two. And then it's gone, never to come back. Instead of 'at least,' how does the sentence sound when you say "only another 100 years?" The fact that you treat such an extremely limited supply of non-renewable chemical wealth as though it's plenty tells me that you have no sense of perspective. We started switching to fossil fuels, what, 150 years ago? That's an eye-blink compared to the span of recorded history. What exactly do you think the future will be like without access to a ready source of potent organic chemistry, even if we aren't burning it for fuel? Modern farming depends on petrochemical-derived fertilizers as well as fuel; plastics make objects less expensive, stronger, lighter, and more accessible; modern materials and construction rely on things like epoxies and composites that ultimately come from fossil carbon stock to do things that can't be done with other materials or methods. What are you going to replace all of that with? That's besides the fact that burning fossil fuels unabated is acidifying the world ocean, changing the climate, poisoning our food, killing people directly, and supporting repressive governments (whether the US is buying from them or not). But hey, we've got at least enough to get us through the next century so none of that matters, right? And who cares what happens when we run out, that's not today's problem!

At a time where gas will nearly hit $6 a gallon, do we really need leftists complaining about the environmental "damage" that occurs when you extract oil from the ground? Or is it because they drive priuses and drink lattes that their shit smells better than mine?

Apparently; yes, we do.

Not that I care whether the irksome people pointing out those irksome facts might be "lefties". (There's a reason Gore called his lecture "An Inconvenient Truth").

"Leftist", "socialist" and similar labels have become totally meaningless demagoguery and hence useless terms in modern America, at least insofar as we're concerned with rational debate -- those who use them generally haven't no clue what such terms really mean. Or quite likely even have it actively wrong. The more vociferously someone smears some perspective as awfully, stupidly, dangerously Leftist, Socialist,New World Order or {gasp} Liberal, the more likely they are to be wrong, and the less pertinent the point is likely to be.

And it's hardly relevant any more in any case. Perhaps Molly Ivins put it best; it's no longer a matter of left versus right, but up versus down -- who's getting screwed and who's doing the screwing. If someone insists on cramming the discussion into some demonized leftie-liberal frame,

Hydrogen has some significant drawbacks as a fuel source. Currently, hydrogen has to be pressurized at 5000 psi in your vehicle to get any kind of acceptable range. Furthermore, to get to 250 - 300 miles per tank you would need to pressurize it to 10k - 15k psi. That's a rolling bomb. I agree that hydrogen may be the "elegant" solution but it is far from practical and for more reasons than lack of fueling infrastructure.

Also, why didn't they just place some air monitoring equipment near the site? That would have worked quite well without the expensive satellite monitoring. Or am I missing something?

Good points that I neglected to address earlier about hydrogen as a portable fuel. You are correct, the main problem with hydrogen is it's low condensation point. Unlike gasoline at normal temperatures it's a gas. So, yes, for long distance applications it'd need to be extremely pressurized. Of course that can be counterbalanced to some degree with continued efficiency efforts and an adjustment of what the perception of a "normal car" is. Right now people drive absurdly overpowered cars around getting ridiculously low fuel efficiency. The fact that normal fuel efficiency ranges right now in passenger vehicles go from 10mpg to 50mpg ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-worst.shtml#tab2 ) clearly illustrates the problem. We need to get rid of the cars that are essentially penis enhancements, large hauling vehicles (think trucks, for instance) should be biodiesel and require extremely pricey licenses and registrations to drive/own. Bicycles should be the commuter vehicle of choice for ~10mile trips and laws should be adjusted to give cyclists the maximum protection and right-of-way. The country's attitude needs to be changed in a major way to make the future work.

Good points that I neglected to address earlier about hydrogen as a portable fuel. You are correct, the main problem with hydrogen is it's low condensation point. Unlike gasoline at normal temperatures it's a gas. So, yes, for long distance applications it'd need to be extremely pressurized. Of course that can be counterbalanced to some degree with continued efficiency efforts and an adjustment of what the perception of a "normal car" is. Right now people drive absurdly overpowered cars around getting ridiculously low fuel efficiency. The fact that normal fuel efficiency ranges right now in passenger vehicles go from 10mpg to 50mpg ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-worst.shtml#tab2 ) clearly illustrates the problem.

Those 10mpg cars aren't exactly normal cars that a whole lot of people drive daily. Realistically people are driving in the 15-25mpg range

Quote:

We need to get rid of the cars that are essentially penis enhancements, large hauling vehicles (think trucks, for instance) should be biodiesel and require extremely pricey licenses and registrations to drive/own. Bicycles should be the commuter vehicle of choice for ~10mile trips and laws should be adjusted to give cyclists the maximum protection and right-of-way. The country's attitude needs to be changed in a major way to make the future work.

I think you're looking at the problem incorrectly. Increasing the costs of transportation is way too much of an economic limiter, especially to the extent you're talking, and it does no benefit for anyone. Forcing people to bikes sounds great until you realise there's a whole lot of people who can't physically do that, that the additional time taken is also an economic limiter and it's based on the road conditions and weather conditions. And what's the energy cost in improving every road so it's acceptable to bikes?

It also ignores that the energy cost of actually replacing cars is huge right now, a "green" car is still an energy intensive thing to make. If I was to move to a Prius, at my current usage levels it would take 15 years in order to save the equivalent amount of energy that it would cost than simply continuing to drive my Kia that I have right now (and that excludes the energy costs of replacing the battery in that Prius, I believe they last 7-10 years). And that's creating a hit to the air quality and atmosphere right now rather than spread over 15 years. The biggest attitude change that really needs to happen is that people need to learn to take care of their cars, expect to get a 20 year life out of them and buy a reasonable one to start with.

All that really needs to happen is that it's accurately reflected in the price when you buy a car. Take the worst cars off the market via incentives, make sure new ones are more efficient and let it keep rolling like that. The easy solution then isn't to move to a completely new source of fuel but to a greener version of what we have, algae that's producing something we can dump into the economical cars we have. And people really like the easy solution, not having to become fit enough to ride 10 miles in the snow.

Those 10mpg cars aren't exactly normal cars that a whole lot of people drive daily. Realistically people are driving in the 15-25mpg range

And that range is still wildly unacceptable. Auto makers are actually starting to mass produce cars that are comfortable and get in the 35-40mpg range again, which is a good start. Aerodynamic work is a big factor in this, but it can still get much better.

Quote:

I think you're looking at the problem incorrectly. Increasing the costs of transportation is way too much of an economic limiter, especially to the extent you're talking, and it does no benefit for anyone. Forcing people to bikes sounds great until you realise there's a whole lot of people who can't physically do that, that the additional time taken is also an economic limiter and it's based on the road conditions and weather conditions. And what's the energy cost in improving every road so it's acceptable to bikes?

Yes, it would be a long term job destroyer, because there is a large part of the population involved in automobile industry in one way or another. However, not all that has to go away, vehicles would still be around, we just need to seriously change the dynamic away from "let's hop in the car to drive a few miles one way so that I don't have to step outside of an air conditioned environment for more than a few minutes on the way to get another burger" to "Let's all get on our bicycles and go get something healthy to eat". I also think your notion that people are too out of shape or can't ride a bicycle because of weather is grossly overstated. Yes, there are a lot of very fat people around who would have a difficult time at first, but everyone has to start somewhere, and let me tell you, bicycling 5 miles really isn't that hard or slow. Even at a leisurely 12mph and adjusting in some traffic slow-downs you still can complete the first half of your ten mile trip in about 30 minutes. Obviously I don't expect people to be going out on their bikes in blizzards, but people don't normally go out in their cars in such conditions, either.

Quote:

It also ignores that the energy cost of actually replacing cars is huge right now, a "green" car is still an energy intensive thing to make. If I was to move to a Prius, at my current usage levels it would take 15 years in order to save the equivalent amount of energy that it would cost than simply continuing to drive my Kia that I have right now (and that excludes the energy costs of replacing the battery in that Prius, I believe they last 7-10 years). And that's creating a hit to the air quality and atmosphere right now rather than spread over 15 years. The biggest attitude change that really needs to happen is that people need to learn to take care of their cars, expect to get a 20 year life out of them and buy a reasonable one to start with.

All that really needs to happen is that it's accurately reflected in the price when you buy a car. Take the worst cars off the market via incentives, make sure new ones are more efficient and let it keep rolling like that. The easy solution then isn't to move to a completely new source of fuel but to a greener version of what we have, algae that's producing something we can dump into the economical cars we have. And people really like the easy solution, not having to become fit enough to ride 10 miles in the snow.

Definitely, I'm not suggesting everyone needs to buy a new car right now, or that battery powered cars are the way to go. (I don't think they are) What I am suggestion is that there are simple ways to encourage and deter desired and undesired behaviors right now. The truck licensing thing is simple, hauling vehicles should only be used for business purposes. Red necks don't need 17mpg huge pick-em-up trucks, and charging a huge premium along with requiring a significantly more difficult to get operators license would go a long way to deterring them from being used as passenger and recreational vehicles.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about improving roads so they're acceptable to bikes, I've never been on a road that was acceptable for a car that a bike couldn't pass. The main problem we have right now is that drivers in cars are outright hostile in many cases to people on bicycles attempting to share the roadway. This sort of behavior needs to be severely punished.

As a frequent cyclist (generally going much much further than the short 5-mile-each-way I suggest for regular people's use) who has been struck by automobiles while on the roadway multiple times having any sort of statutory punishment applied to a motorist by the police I've had the misfortune of dealing with is like pulling teeth. Much the way laws had to be changed to make it mandatory for police to arrest/charge people in domestic dispute calls where spousal abuse was a significant possibility, such things must be applied to traffic situations in which a driver has put a cyclist in danger, or injured/damaged a bicyclist or his property - and without the police officer having had to witness the crime.

Those 10mpg cars aren't exactly normal cars that a whole lot of people drive daily. Realistically people are driving in the 15-25mpg range

And that range is still wildly unacceptable. Auto makers are actually starting to mass produce cars that are comfortable and get in the 35-40mpg range again, which is a good start. Aerodynamic work is a big factor in this, but it can still get much better.

Basically they need to be hybrids. Which doesn't have that much to do with the size of the car, you can buy 35mpg SUV's, so long as they're a hybrid.

Quote:

Quote:

I think you're looking at the problem incorrectly. Increasing the costs of transportation is way too much of an economic limiter, especially to the extent you're talking, and it does no benefit for anyone. Forcing people to bikes sounds great until you realise there's a whole lot of people who can't physically do that, that the additional time taken is also an economic limiter and it's based on the road conditions and weather conditions. And what's the energy cost in improving every road so it's acceptable to bikes?

Yes, it would be a long term job destroyer, because there is a large part of the population involved in automobile industry in one way or another. However, not all that has to go away, vehicles would still be around, we just need to seriously change the dynamic away from "let's hop in the car to drive a few miles one way so that I don't have to step outside of an air conditioned environment for more than a few minutes on the way to get another burger" to "Let's all get on our bicycles and go get something healthy to eat". I also think your notion that people are too out of shape or can't ride a bicycle because of weather is grossly overstated. Yes, there are a lot of very fat people around who would have a difficult time at first, but everyone has to start somewhere, and let me tell you, bicycling 5 miles really isn't that hard or slow. Even at a leisurely 12mph and adjusting in some traffic slow-downs you still can complete the first half of your ten mile trip in about 30 minutes. Obviously I don't expect people to be going out on their bikes in blizzards, but people don't normally go out in their cars in such conditions, either.

I live in northern BC. I've never missed a single day of work due to the weather and a blizzard doesn't really faze me (I did forget to plug my car in one day when it was -40, but I took a taxi to work instead).

You seem to be mixing up the environmental and the health portion of this too. While being healthy is a grand goal, you can't have the government mandating it under the guise of environmental concerns, it won't ever fly. I also never said "too out of shape", I said "physically unable". While that includes the obese, it also includes a huge number of physically disabled people and the elderly. Riding a bike 10 miles when you're 60 and out of shape is a really, really bad idea and we live in a world with an aging population.

We have to be realistic here, the government mandating that everyone get in better shape is never going to happen, so lets look at what can happen.

[

Quote:

Definitely, I'm not suggesting everyone needs to buy a new car right now, or that battery powered cars are the way to go. (I don't think they are) What I am suggestion is that there are simple ways to encourage and deter desired and undesired behaviors right now. The truck licensing thing is simple, hauling vehicles should only be used for business purposes. Red necks don't need 17mpg huge pick-em-up trucks, and charging a huge premium along with requiring a significantly more difficult to get operators license would go a long way to deterring them from being used as passenger and recreational vehicles.

Why though? If we have a green method of producing energy, a renewable one that doesn't hurt the environment, what is wrong with driving a 17mpg pickup truck? It's not the governments role to enforce a lifestyle on anyone. As I said, you're really conflating the green issue with other issues that specifically interest you, specifically cycling laws and the number of cars on the road.

Besides, there's already a premium, the cost of gas and any associated carbon taxes (plus the cost of the vehicles thanks to the amount of metal in them). But we're talking Canada here (and the US, most likely), if I want to be an overweight, gas guzzling moron I'm allowed to be, so long as I pay for it. I agree with paying for the associated costs, but if we have green fuel and we're not hurting the environment, what are they?

Quote:

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about improving roads so they're acceptable to bikes, I've never been on a road that was acceptable for a car that a bike couldn't pass. The main problem we have right now is that drivers in cars are outright hostile in many cases to people on bicycles attempting to share the roadway. This sort of behavior needs to be severely punished.

That goes both ways, in Canada a cyclist is meant to ride as close to the shoulder as possible and in single file. That rarely happens. Roads are built primarily for vehicles, you're in a minority if you want to ride a bike right now and that's reflected in how road rules are written. I think dedicated bike lanes are appropriate for the safety of all, driving around Vancouver I've seen how well it works, but if we're going to dramatically increase the number of cyclists there needs to be a better system than just sharing the same road with one group doing 10mph and another doing 40, it's just going to end in tears.

Quote:

As a frequent cyclist (generally going much much further than the short 5-mile-each-way I suggest for regular people's use) who has been struck by automobiles while on the roadway multiple times having any sort of statutory punishment applied to a motorist by the police I've had the misfortune of dealing with is like pulling teeth. Much the way laws had to be changed to make it mandatory for police to arrest/charge people in domestic dispute calls where spousal abuse was a significant possibility, such things must be applied to traffic situations in which a driver has put a cyclist in danger, or injured/damaged a bicyclist or his property - and without the police officer having had to witness the crime.

I know what you mean, before moving to Canada I used to ride regularly, now it's a little hard with the horrible weather most of the year and the horrendous quality of the roads plus everyone driving a truck up here (it's not just rednecks, driving a normal compact car makes me feel like I'm in a shoebox sometimes compared to what's on the road), although I still do from time to time. Instead most of my cycling comes in the bike in front of the TV kind these days.

And while I sympathize, again, we're talking about an environmental issue here. We could kill two birds with one stone, improve what it's like to be on the road while also making it more green but getting that past the populace is going to be more difficult than getting a redneck truck driver charged for their horrible driving. We need to look at realistic solutions and that solution is right there, green fuels that work with existing cars. It's more than possible, economically feasible and doesn't cause economic harm.

Basically they need to be hybrids. Which doesn't have that much to do with the size of the car, you can buy 35mpg SUV's, so long as they're a hybrid.

Yes, size does have a lot to do with it, with the same general design they have more drag. At non-residential kinds of speed it's drag that's having the greatest effect on gas mileage, and larger vehicles do generally have more drag.

Quote:

I live in northern BC. I've never missed a single day of work due to the weather and a blizzard doesn't really faze me (I did forget to plug my car in one day when it was -40, but I took a taxi to work instead).

You seem to be mixing up the environmental and the health portion of this too. While being healthy is a grand goal, you can't have the government mandating it under the guise of environmental concerns, it won't ever fly. I also never said "too out of shape", I said "physically unable". While that includes the obese, it also includes a huge number of physically disabled people and the elderly. Riding a bike 10 miles when you're 60 and out of shape is a really, really bad idea and we live in a world with an aging population.

We have to be realistic here, the government mandating that everyone get in better shape is never going to happen, so lets look at what can happen.

I'm not mixing up anything, I'm talking about what needs to happen. The health aspect is incidental. As for the elderly and disabled, mass transit could go a long way. In any case I don't expect my ideas to be implemented in a me-first country like America. It'd be impossible to get enough people elected on the platform of having fat people (who make up the majority of Americans, now) actually have to do something other than driving the equivalent of a modestly sized room around so they don't have to get sweaty on their way to burger king or feel like they're so fat.

Quote:

Why though? If we have a green method of producing energy, a renewable one that doesn't hurt the environment, what is wrong with driving a 17mpg pickup truck? It's not the governments role to enforce a lifestyle on anyone. As I said, you're really conflating the green issue with other issues that specifically interest you, specifically cycling laws and the number of cars on the road.

Besides, there's already a premium, the cost of gas and any associated carbon taxes (plus the cost of the vehicles thanks to the amount of metal in them). But we're talking Canada here (and the US, most likely), if I want to be an overweight, gas guzzling moron I'm allowed to be, so long as I pay for it. I agree with paying for the associated costs, but if we have green fuel and we're not hurting the environment, what are they?

I'm not just talking about what can be done when we have a limitless supply of hydrogen fuel, I'm also talking about what can be done in the mean time to transition us there and set up the proper attitude to make it work. Really more dreaming than planning. I don't foresee someone like myself getting enough power to make it happen.

Quote:

That goes both ways, in Canada a cyclist is meant to ride as close to the shoulder as possible and in single file. That rarely happens. Roads are built primarily for vehicles, you're in a minority if you want to ride a bike right now and that's reflected in how road rules are written. I think dedicated bike lanes are appropriate for the safety of all, driving around Vancouver I've seen how well it works, but if we're going to dramatically increase the number of cyclists there needs to be a better system than just sharing the same road with one group doing 10mph and another doing 40, it's just going to end in tears.

I can't speak for everywhere, but where I live a bicycle is apportioned an entire traffic lane for lanes up to a certain width. After a certain width side-by-side travel is permissible. Either way the bicyclist is entitled to at least 6 feet of space in the lane.

This law is quite frequently completely unknown/disobeyed in my area.

Quote:

I know what you mean, before moving to Canada I used to ride regularly, now it's a little hard with the horrible weather most of the year and the horrendous quality of the roads plus everyone driving a truck up here (it's not just rednecks, driving a normal compact car makes me feel like I'm in a shoebox sometimes compared to what's on the road), although I still do from time to time. Instead most of my cycling comes in the bike in front of the TV kind these days.

I'm sure they don't compare, but on the truly cold days (around or below freezing) I can relate. It's difficult to make yourself go out into that sort of weather. Still, coaxing people in that direction would be better than not.

Quote:

And while I sympathize, again, we're talking about an environmental issue here. We could kill two birds with one stone, improve what it's like to be on the road while also making it more green but getting that past the populace is going to be more difficult than getting a redneck truck driver charged for their horrible driving. We need to look at realistic solutions and that solution is right there, green fuels that work with existing cars. It's more than possible, economically feasible and doesn't cause economic harm.

We're talking about a lot of things, but I would certainly be happy with starting just by moving North America to a renewable green fuel supply.

It's incredible how easy it is to get people to scream bloody murder that they want an oil pipeline built over a major aquifer, to pump more hydrocarbons, but no one wants to move to a renewable energy, hydrogen, and diesel based energy economy, which could work cleaner and make heavy use of existing infrastructure and automobiles.

One of the major issues people cite with regard to the problem with solar energy is its inconsistent availability, but such problems can be overcome with a simple energy storage scheme utilizing excess energy produced during daytime to produce hydrogen via electrolysis which can then be "burned" during times of low energy production and/or higher utilization to in effect, cleanly store clean power. (as in from wind and solar)

Why don't you tell us how you switched to clean power and simply store all of your excess generation as hydrogen?

jackstrop wrote:

Secondly, people do feel the environmental effects of petroleum use, the problem is most people are too ignorant to understand that the warmer winters and stronger storms, as well as increased respiratory problems in modern society are linked to burning hydrocarbons.

You're purposely lumping all fossil fuels into one blame category, even though there are many hydrocarbons and many specific means of converting them to energy. Not even all of those means are burning; a catalytic heater doesn't burn propane and therefore poses no carbon monoxide risk. Greatest health danger comes from particulates, then probably ozone, NOx less so. Coal and bunker fuel produce the most particulates. Catalytic converters on every car since 1974 reduce NOx to extremely dilute levels, at the cost of some fuel efficiency, which means far less smog.

jackstrop wrote:

Batteries aren't a good solution. Change to direct hydrogen power is the most elegant solution. It has excellent energy density, it can utilize already existing infrastructure for transit, and it burns into water.

Oh, you're one of those. You realize that the dead-weight energy loss of compressing hydrogen makes it inefficient by comparison, right? The most optimistic marketing story is that each kilogram of H2 costs about the same amount as a gallon of gas at a fuel station and gives about the same range, and that eventually a hydrogen car will have range similar to that of a liquid-fueled automobile. The demonstration hydrogen vehicles are all large SUVs in order to amortize the large physical size of the carbon-fiber super high pressure tank, and ironically have short ranges which have caused some testers to have range anxiety.

jackstrop wrote:

Right now people drive absurdly overpowered cars around getting ridiculously low fuel efficiency. The fact that normal fuel efficiency ranges right now in passenger vehicles go from 10mpg to 50mpg ( http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best-worst.shtml#tab2 ) clearly illustrates the problem. We need to get rid of the cars that are essentially penis enhancements, large hauling vehicles (think trucks, for instance) should be biodiesel and require extremely pricey licenses and registrations to drive/own. Bicycles should be the commuter vehicle of choice for ~10mile trips and laws should be adjusted to give cyclists the maximum protection and right-of-way.

Are you sure that your real concern isn't social engineering and that you're not just using a technocratic argument in pursuit of a nontechnical point of view?

Basically they need to be hybrids. Which doesn't have that much to do with the size of the car, you can buy 35mpg SUV's, so long as they're a hybrid.

Yes, size does have a lot to do with it, with the same general design they have more drag. At non-residential kinds of speed it's drag that's having the greatest effect on gas mileage, and larger vehicles do generally have more drag.

A decent design with a hybrid engine, however, also brings about similar gains. A carbon neutral fuel source means that it's only wasted if it's not renewable, but the algae fuel sources I keep going on about thrive on carbon dioxide and we can make more. It only costs more to their wallet, it's not an environmental impact and there's no actual need to give that up big stonking truck (and people won't anyway).

Quote:

I'm not mixing up anything, I'm talking about what needs to happen. The health aspect is incidental. As for the elderly and disabled, mass transit could go a long way. In any case I don't expect my ideas to be implemented in a me-first country like America. It'd be impossible to get enough people elected on the platform of having fat people (who make up the majority of Americans, now) actually have to do something other than driving the equivalent of a modestly sized room around so they don't have to get sweaty on their way to burger king or feel like they're so fat.

Actually, mass transit isn't really that green. It's greener than driving only because it already exists, it'll run regardless of whether you or I take it (although over time more people using it means more of it is implemented), it needs to move to battery/hydrogen/biofuels as well as part of any move to clean up what we put out. Really it's just a service though, not an environmental solution.

But I got a bit lost on why it kept coming up when it doesn't really matter to me whether people weigh 500 tonnes and drive tanks around, so long as it doesn't hurt the environment. And that's actually possible to happen.

A lot of people drive small cars that are green despite being overweight, so I don't think there's a correlation either. They may not want to give up cars entirely, but there's no requirement to get everyone out of cars entirely, as far as I can see.

Quote:

I'm not just talking about what can be done when we have a limitless supply of hydrogen fuel, I'm also talking about what can be done in the mean time to transition us there and set up the proper attitude to make it work. Really more dreaming than planning. I don't foresee someone like myself getting enough power to make it happen.

Neither am I, hybrids running on algae made fuel are possible today. Algae fuels are carbon neutral and it's expected they'll even be able to match the price oil companies have right now within 5-6 years and hybrids bring about the same kind of efficiencies that tiny cars do.

Quote:

I can't speak for everywhere, but where I live a bicycle is apportioned an entire traffic lane for lanes up to a certain width. After a certain width side-by-side travel is permissible. Either way the bicyclist is entitled to at least 6 feet of space in the lane.

This law is quite frequently completely unknown/disobeyed in my area.

That actually sucks, quite a lot. I wish that was the kind of accommodation I was provided for cycling but there definitely is a need to change behaviour if bikes are being provided for yet drivers aren't adhering to the rules.

Years ago in New Zealand there were two options that were subsidised, LPG (liquid Petroleum Gas) and CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) - maybe that is one option that needs to be looked at given that there are many places in the US and in friendly countries which would mean a move from petrol over to natural gas at least in the short term. Long term what is really needed is a super battery, cheap and power a car for up to 500km - if you developed that then 1/2 of the problem would be solved already.

Extraction of natural gas by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is a significant environmental and health concern. I am not persuaded it's a good alternative.

Why don't you tell us how you switched to clean power and simply store all of your excess generation as hydrogen?

Maybe you should go back and read through the whole discussion?

Quote:

You're purposely lumping all fossil fuels into one blame category, even though there are many hydrocarbons and many specific means of converting them to energy. Not even all of those means are burning; a catalytic heater doesn't burn propane and therefore poses no carbon monoxide risk. Greatest health danger comes from particulates, then probably ozone, NOx less so. Coal and bunker fuel produce the most particulates. Catalytic converters on every car since 1974 reduce NOx to extremely dilute levels, at the cost of some fuel efficiency, which means far less smog.

I'm only talking about the two leading energy sources in America for electricity and automotive use respectively. (coal and petroleum)

Quote:

Oh, you're one of those. You realize that the dead-weight energy loss of compressing hydrogen makes it inefficient by comparison, right? The most optimistic marketing story is that each kilogram of H2 costs about the same amount as a gallon of gas at a fuel station and gives about the same range, and that eventually a hydrogen car will have range similar to that of a liquid-fueled automobile. The demonstration hydrogen vehicles are all large SUVs in order to amortize the large physical size of the carbon-fiber super high pressure tank, and ironically have short ranges which have caused some testers to have range anxiety.

You realize, of course, that we're talking about a pie in the sky future where energy is plentiful and free, right? Once that's the case then the energy cost to produce energy is nothing, so no matter how much energy it takes to make the scheme work, as long as it's possible within the framework of society's energy production then it's possible and practical.

Quote:

Are you sure that your real concern isn't social engineering and that you're not just using a technocratic argument in pursuit of a nontechnical point of view?

No, my real concern is that change won't happen as long as a significant percentage of people are literally resistant to change.